M/s. SRF Ltd. Versus CCE, Trichy

2016 (11) TMI 925 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Verification of the deposit particulars against demand - Held that: - Looking into the length of litigation and its outcome, we do not propose to keep the matter pending further. When Tribunalís stay order prima facie made categorical finding as to discharge of the liability by appellant there is no scope to doubt further as to such deposit in absence of any evidence to the Contrary. Ld. Counsel is correct in his averment to say that even after the stay order was passed, discrepancy in deposit h .....

t Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR), For the respondent Per: D.N. Panda This matter was heard yesterday. Ld. Counsel s argument was that the amount already deposited against the demand raised by Revenue by the impugned order do not call for any further amount to be paid. This was their consistent pleading before the authorities below from 30.06.2003, praying for verification of the deposit particulars. 2. In view of above pleadings Revenue was directed yesterday to verify the payment particulars fr .....

er Chapter 63, for the period March to June, 1994 and Novemer 1994 to 15.09.1995. (ii) Second appeal registered as No. E/426/2005 was filed by the appellant challenging the OIA dated 28.02.2005 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy. Vide this order, the appellate Commissioner upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and confirmed the following:- a. Duty payable on captively consumed flexible plain sheets of plastics from May 1994 to 15.03.1995 - ₹ 60,78,328/- was de .....

pear at page 13 & 14 of the appeal paper book No. E/426/2005. Such fact is not disputed by Revenue and has been recorded in the Stay order No. 860-861/2005 dated 07.10.2005. (v) Tribunal s Stay order dated 07.10.2005 reproduced the demand statement vis-a-vis the amount already paid by appellant. That shows net amount of ₹ 26,22,862.- was payable by appellant. In fact, the appellant had calculated the amount payable by them at a higher amount than shown in the SCNs. (vi) Appellant had p .....

ssed confirming duty demands without adjusting the amounts already paid. (viii) Appellant invites attention to their submission dated 30.06.2003 at page 225 of the appeal paper book. (ix) Appellant prays that the appeals may be allowed without any demand payable. 3. Submissions above made by the ld. Counsel remained undisputed by Revenue except seeking further time to verify the details of the deposit particulars. 4. At this juncture, ld. Counsel says as early as October, 2005, the fact of depos .....